Two storey side and rear extension, first floor extension with new roof and first floor habitable accommodation and single storey side extension involving removal of existing garage, new vehicular access, enlarging existing access and new carriage driveway to front
389
The Committee considered an application for a two storey side and rear extension, first floor extension with new roof and first floor habitable accommodation and single storey side extension involving removal of existing garage, new vehicular access, enlarging existing access and new carriage driveway to front at 9 Welshwood Park Road, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor Smith. The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all the information was set out. The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Eleanor Moss, Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with James Ryan, Principal Planning Officer, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Kent Stabler addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He explained his concern regarding the impact of the proposal on his own property and was of the view that it was likely to mean that his house would be made dark for most of the day. He appreciated that compromises had been made and the application had been amended in response to neighbour’s concerns. However, he considered there remained a large number of concerns which remained. He referred to ambiguous information and discrepancies contained in the Committee report which led him to the view that the application may not have been assessed accurately. He considered Welshwood Park Road had a particular rural character which should be preserved and was of the view that the ‘boundary to boundary’ proposal was detrimental to the rural street scene.
Jared Doouss addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that he worked at Severalls Business Park and considered himself lucky, despite the property’s current state of disrepair, to have been successful in purchasing the application site to enable him to create a home in an area with a wealth of character. The brief he had given to his architect was for a dwelling which would fit in with the existing surrounding area. Care had been taken with the proposed ridgeline of the dwelling so that it was broadly in line with neighbouring properties. He referred to amendments which had been made to the original plans to mitigate concerns raised by objectors, including the cropping of roof gable ends, removal of a balcony and barbeque area and inclusion of obscure glazing to side windows. He considered the amended proposals met all relevant planning requirements, fitted well with the surroundings and would add to the rich character of the area.
Councillor Smith attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He acknowledged that this would be a finely balanced assessment of the application. The proposal was for the bungalow to be significantly extended but he gave credit to both the applicant and the objectors who had all sought to narrow their differences amicably. He was aware the Committee had undertaken a site visit and he considered the application merited due consideration by the Committee in the context of a public meeting and he welcomed the Committee’s views.
In response to comments raised, the Planning Officer confirmed that, in order to preserve the amenity of the site, proposed conditions had been included which would provide for the retention of boundary hedging and trees. She acknowledged inaccuracies in the Committee report which had been corrected in the amendment sheet and confirmed that the aspect of the plot would mean that shadowing would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the neighbouring property. Whilst Welshwood Park Road contained an eclectic mix of dwellings, it was not a designated Conservation area and, as such, the proposed extension was considered to be acceptable. Many of the neighbouring properties were large which would mean that the proposal, on what was a very large plot, would not appear to be overbearing but would satisfactorily conform to the street scene.
Members of the Committee welcomed the concessions which had been made by the applicant and considered the proposal had been well thought through and would contribute positively to the street scene. The proposed condition to remove permitted development rights for the installation of side windows above ground level was considered acceptable and sufficient.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amendment sheet.